LAYOUT_LANDSCAPE() rotates the Lay_* directions too

[kirchsth]

The "new" LAYOUT_LANDSCAPE() function offers a significant advantage: it maintains the orientation of Rel_* relationships. For example, Rel_Up(a, bUp, ...) correctly positions bUp above a.

In contrast, the "old" LAYOUT_LEFT_RIGHT() function rotates Rel_Up(a, bUp, ...), resulting in bUp being positioned to the left of a.

However, the Lay_* functions were not updated accordingly and still apply rotation. As a result, Lay_Up(a, bUp) positions bUp to the left of a.

To address this, new LAY_* functions need to be introduced to allow layouts without rotation.

The fix (new LAY_* functions) could be following:

LAY_U(a, bUp)
LAY_R(a, cRight)
LAY_D(a, dDown)
LAY_L(a, eLeft)

[kirchsth]

@Potherca: I need a new name that I'm compatible with older layouts and therefore I defined "LAY_..." in uppercase like all other layout related calls (which are defined in Layout.md).
But I really don't like "LAY_..." in uppercase, because it looks so different in contrast to "Rel_...".
Do you have an idea of another/better name?

[Potherca]

Hmmm. 🤔

LayoutWithRotation is a bit long, but descriptive. The question then becomes is there soming as descriptive but shorter?

Would there be a large downside to using Layout_...? ¹

Alternatively, another word could be used, like "Positioning" which would give us (as an abbreviated form) Pos_....

Footnotes

1. Other than possible user confusion, but the is a potential problem regales of chosen name. ↩

[kirchsth]

I like Pos_... .

I don't understand your potential problem, what do you mean? Do you see a technical issue?

Another alternative could be that we add an additional optional argument to the LAYOUT_LANDSCAPE() like LAYOUT_LANDSCAPE(?withFix=false) and then we could activate the fix with LAYOUT_LANDSCAPE(true) and LAYOUT_LANDSCAPE() use the old layout rules. What do you think?

[Potherca]

No technical issue. The "potential problem" is that users might not understand the distinction between Rel, Lay and Pos, but I don't think there is much that can be done about that.

Usually I am not a big fan of boolean parameters, but in this case it might be a cleaner solution than introducing another set of functions.